a Business Spectator publication

Australia's super failure

Australia's investment chain starts with money flowing from super fund members into their respective funds. Each fund is managed by trustees who have a fiduciary duty to act in their members’ best interests, with the primary goal of achieving good risk-adjusted returns from the fund’s investments.

They hire investment managers to do the hands-on management for them and they use asset consultants to help them pick which investment managers to use. Brokers and other researchers provide specialised research for investment managers to help them make their investment decisions; and the companies they invest in are heavily influenced by the demands and expectations of investment managers, brokers and other researchers.

It would be fair to expect that these investment managers take a keen interest in climate change risk and construct their portfolios accordingly. But unfortunately, there is a cancer in the system in the form of misaligned interests.

According to APRA data, more than 75 per cent of super fund members in Australia are at least 15 years from retirement. Compare this to the timeline of those further down the investment chain, such as investment managers and brokers, whose employees get a large part of their remuneration in the form of annual bonuses. This is a substantial gap, resulting in the agents (investment managers) frequently behaving in a short-term manner that is not aligned with the long-term focus of their principals (super funds).

Superannuation funds do have one thing in their favour: they determine how they distribute their funds amongst their chosen investment managers. The larger funds, in particular, can exert influence on the contractual arrangements with their investment managers – so they can press for competently managed climate change risk if they are motivated to do so.

A major problem for super funds is that they have a lot on their plate right now. There has been significant structural change in the industry in the wake of the Cooper review, among other things, so it is not always easy for climate change to get the attention it should.

Many funds agree that climate change is an issue, but they fall down when it comes to doing anything serious about it, because it always seems far enough off into the future that inaction comes with little financial penalty.

A good number of Australian funds have committed to better management of environmental risk by signing up to the global initiative known as the ‘UN Principles for Responsible Investment’. Data from the 2009 assessment of signatories shows that, of the funds ranking in the bottom quartile, those from Australia and New Zealand rank lower than funds from any other developed countries. In other words, many funds have said will act on climate risk but haven’t actually done anything yet.

To be fair, there are a handful of large funds that are at, or close to, ‘best practice’. But the gap between our high achievers and laggards is wide.

So what should funds be doing to strategically prepare for the impacts of climate change? Here are some suggestions:

– Determine whether climate change is viewed as a material investment risk or not; and if not, determine the basis for reaching this conclusion;

– Integrate the issue of climate change into the fund’s strategic planning;

– Ensure executive KPIs are structured to encourage an operational response;

– Develop high level policies about core beliefs;

– Develop an implementation plan.

Implementation has many dimensions. Funds need to deal with their investment supply chain and, in particular, strive to align the behaviour of their investment managers with the time horizons of their fund members. They also need to tailor the plan to their own characteristics. For example, large funds have more capacity to dedicate resources to the task, whereas small funds have resourcing constraints and may be wise to devote their time to collaborative activities.

Regardless of where they are at, funds should, at a minimum, be honest and transparent with their members about their progress in climate change management.

Phil Preston is the Principal of Seacliff Consulting, a firm offering specialised consulting services in the financial and responsible investment fields. His prior work includes 17 years of financial research and portfolio management in the funds management industry.

Comments on this article

Niche market is off-grid

A long-term investor should ask, how profitable will this renewables plant be in 10 or 20 years time?
.
At the moment, estimates of profitability compare the costs of renewables+gas versus gas alone. However the price of gas itself is going to escalate, quite apart from the inevitable carbon tax component. Consequently, the current cost model of "renewables" is itself going to escalate.
.
If however, the cost model is based on renewables+storage, a more robust projection into the future can be made, as costs of renewables+storage are certain to decrease. If (er, yes, "if") renewables+storage compares adequately with gas-alone now, it will certainly compete better in the future.
.
Further, the investment is more robust against the change in the mainstream electricity supplier. The model of renewables+storage does not require gas as backup, and can survive the replacement of gas with coal+promises, or nuclear etc. The future cost viability then rests on a comparison between renewables+storage versus nuclear, etc.
.
IMHO, the comparison will fail against nuclear. However, renewables+storage is already viable in competition with diesel, and is spreading through remote Australia. The wisdom of such an investment may rely more on where its customers are, than on competing with the big suppliers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsible Investing

I am with Lawrie Ayres. I can not understand how investing large amounts of money into an area that needs excessive and ongoing taxpayer subsidies to survive can be considered either responsible or low risk. I am currently retired and am watching this debate with interest. If there is any more by my super fund to start throwing money at this industry then my money will come out immediately. If you want to see the ultimate end of this binge on renewables you only need look at Spain. There has been an almost total collapse of this industry there and the government is starting on what can only be described as a panic build of 13.5GW of gas power so people can still turn on their lights at night. If people want to throw away their wealth on dodgy taxpayer funded attempt to change the weather then they can but not me and not with my money thank you.  

Paul Gilding

Good article Phil. Given how markets tend to move on major structural issues (late but then suddenly) this is clearly a major issue for super funds. I think you're key point is right, that funds must have a clear, strategic view on what climate means for the economy and how their investment strategy is influenced by that. What is not acceptable is the "hope it doesn't get me" strategy!

The huge money now flowing into this area, such as there being more investment in renewable power generation than fossil fuel power generation in both 2008 and 2009 is a good case in point. The market is waking up and those who stay asleep will lose.

Climate Change

While those who are experts at spending other peoples money are advocating expenditure on wind farms and the like ; the more sober, those spending their own funds or the funds they are responsible for, are far more circumspect. The question that really bothers them is whether CO2 is causing warming and climate change. If it is not then any expenditure on mitigation measures is wasted and such losses would have to be made up to investors. 

Despite governments spending in excess of $100 billion on Climate Change research there has not been ONE paper which shows a causal link between CO2 and warming. There is plenty of speculation by the promoters of AGW and computer models have purported to forecast rising temps as emission increase. The problem is the temps are flat while CO2 soars upward. There are just as many scientists who point to solar cycles and other natural causes for warming. With the "settled science" so uncertain it is no wonder that responsible investors are looking beyond the propaganda and seeing some confusion. Hurricanes, for example, were to become more frequent and more intense. The reality is we are experiencing the lowest hurricane season in 30 years.

The climate will change as it always has and mankind can neither speed it up nor slow it down. It is this realisation that causes responsible managers to stop awhile.